tv Vice Presidential Debate FOX October 11, 2012 6:00pm-7:30pm PDT
this is this is a fox measures... measure up. money to our schools. and good evening from center college in danville, ky. i am shepard smith. we're moments away from the first and only vice-presidential debate. this will be the first debate on the national stage. congressman paul ryan going up against president joe biden whose experience goes back with
the bidding goes back 40 years. the really have much of an impact but tonight could be the big exception. gov. mitt romney announced in the polls after his strong performance. vice-president biden will likely try to make some lost ground up. tonight's topic, domestic and foreign possibilitpolicy. tonight will be about the economy. an issue that the pundits say will likely decide this election. each campaign offers a vastly different approach to tackling the tough issues including how to lower the nation's 7.8% unemployment rate and how to rein in the national debt that tops $16 trillion. each nominee has 90 minutes to convince the voters that his to get is the best. from abcs moderator is marth
news. >> good evening and welcome to the first and only vice- presidential debate of 2012. sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. i am honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service. tonight's debate is divided between divided and domestic foreign-policy issues and i will move back and forth between foreign and domestic because that is what a president or vice-president will have to do. we will have nine different segments. i will ask both candidates to question and will each have two minutes to answer. i will encourage the discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. bicorne toss, it has been determined that vice-president biden will be first to answer the opening question. we have a wonderful audience.
you will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate and right now as we welcome vice-president joe biden and congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> nice to see you. >> how you doing? >> you got your wave to the families in. good evening, gentlemen. it is an honor to be here with both of you. i would like to begin with libya. a rather somber note, one month ago tonight on the anniversary of 9/11, ambassador chris stevens and three other americans were killed in a terrorist attack in benghazi. the state department has now made clear there were no
protesters there. it was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. >> it was a tragedy. chris divens was one of our best and we lost three other great americans. i can make commitments to you. we will find and bring to justice the man who did this and secondly, we will get to the bottom of it and where the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the american public because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again. we're looking at a president, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. caring for the massive security -- the national security of the country. you should look at how he has handled the issues of the day. he has said he will end the war. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake, that he and it.
governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. with regard to afghanistan will end the war in 2014. governor romney said we should not set a date. with regard to 2014, it depends. when it came to osama bin laden, a first dayident in office signed an order saying his priority was to get bin laden. governor romney was asked about how he would proceed and he said -- he did not understand it was about restoring america's's heart and letting terrace know if you do harm to america, we will track you to the gates of hell, if need be. lastly, the president of the united states has led with a steady hand and clear vision. governor romney, the opposite.
the last thing we need now is another war. >> congressman ryan. >> we morelos of these four americans who were -- mourn the loss of these four americans who were murdered. it took the president two weeks to acknowledge this was a terrorist attack. he went to the un and in his speech he said six times, he talked about the youtube video. if we are hit by a terrorist, we'll call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. our ambassador in paris has a marine detachment writing him. should we not have a marine the tower -- the attachment guarding our ambassador in benghazi, a place where we knew there was a al qaeda cell with arms? this is becoming more troubling by the day. they're trying to blame date
romney-brand to get for making this an issue. with respect to iraq, we have the same position before the withdrawal which was we agreed with the obama administration. the tab an agreement to make sure we secure our gains. -- let's have an agreement to make sure we secure our gains. he failed to get the agreement. we do not have adequate because they failed to get one. that is what we're talking about. when it comes to oureter vets owe them a great debt of gratitude including your son. we also want to make sure that we do not was the things we fought so hard to get. we agreed with the 2014 transition but we want to do is make sure we are not projecting weakness abroad and that is what is happening here. this benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself but unfortunately it is indicative of our broader problem. that is what we're watching on our tv screens is the unraveling
of the foreign-policy. this is making us less safe. >> i want to talk to about in the middle of the crisis, governor romney and we're talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the obama administration. is that appropriate right in the middle of the crisis? >> on that same day, the obama administration had the same position. let's recall date is about their own statement -- they disavowed their own statement. we have the same position but is never too early to speak out for our values. we should have spoken out right away when the revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in iran were talking -- attacking their people. we should always stand up for peace, democracy, for individual rights, and we should not impose these devastating defense cuts because what that does what we
equivocate on our values, when we show we are cutting our defense, it mixes more week. it projects weakness and when we look weak, our adversaries are willing to test us. they're less willing -- >> that is a bunch of malarkey. what he said is not accurate. >> be specific. >> this lecture an embassy security, the congressmen here cut embassy security to his budget by $300 million below what we asked for. number one. so much for the embassy security peace. governor romney before he knew the facts before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. this talk about this weakness, i do not understand what my friend is talking about here. this is a president who has gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do.
this is a guy who has repaired our alliances so the west -- the rest of the world follows us again. he brought the entire world to -- the most devastating efforts on iran to make sure that they stopped. these guys bet against america all the time. >> let me go back. what will you first -- what were you first told about the attack? why were people talking about protests when people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns? there were no protests. >> what we were told by the intelligence community. the intelligence community told us that as they learned more facts about what happened. they changed their assessment. that is why there is an investigation headed by a leading diplomats from both
reagan years who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were lapses, what the lapses were so there will never happen again. >> it wanted more security there. >> we were not told. we did not know it wanted more security. by the way at the time, we were told exactly, we said exactly what that intelligence community told us they knew. that was the assessment and as the committee changed their view, we made it clear. that is why i said we will get to the bottom of this. usually when there is a crisis, we pull together as a nation. even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference. that is not presidential leadership. crack's a lot to ask you, the romney talks about no apologies. should the u.s. have apologized for america's burning korans in
afghanistan? should the u.s. apologize for marines urinating on corpses? >> yes. what we should not be apologizing for is standing up for values. we should not be saying to the egyptian people while mubarak is cracking down on them saying he is a good guy and the next time since he has to go. we need marines in benghazi when the commander says we need more forces. those requests were not honored. this was the anniversary of 9/11. it was libya, a country we knew we had al qaeda sells there as we know, al qaeda and its affiliates are on the rise in northern africa and we did not give our ambassador in benghazi a marine detachment? of course there is an investigation so we can make sure this never happens again.
when it comes to speaking up for our values we should not apologize for those. here is the problem. look at the various issues out there and it is unraveling. the vice-president talks about sanctions on iran. >> let's move to iran. i would actually like to move to iran. there's no bigger national issue this country is facing. both have said it will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. even if that means no -- military action. last week, bob gates said a strike on iraq's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting as for generations." could the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike me? >> we cannot allow iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. now, let's take a look at where we come from. when barack obama was elected, they had enough nuclear material
to make one bomb. now have enough for five. they're racing toward a nuclear weapon. there four years closer to nuclear capability. the only reason we got it is because russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions from hitting the central bank. mitt romney proposed these things in 2007 and i have been fighting for these things since 2009. the administration was blocking his every step of the way only because we have strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions and we were able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration. imagine what would have happened if we had these in place earlier. you think iran is not reason? look at what they're doing. they are stepping up their terrorist attacks. they tried in the u.s. last year when they tried to blow up the saudi ambassador at a restaurant in washington, d.c. and talk about credibility. with this administration says all options are on the table, a
standout senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals. in order to solve this peacefully which is everybody's goal, you have to have the ayatollah's change their mind and look at where they are. they're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. it is because the administration has no credibility. this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions and now we have them in place because of congress. they say the military options are on the table but it is not viewed as credible and the key is to do this peacefully and make sure we have credibility. we will have credibility on this issue. >> incredible. imagine how we left the republican congress worked out the sanctions. do you think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us, russia and china, all our allies? these are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period.
when governor romney is asked, he says we have to keep the sanctions. are you going to go to war? >> we want to prevent war. >> how are they going to prevent war if they say there is nothing more that they say we should do that we have already done and number two, with regard to the ability of the united states to take action militarily, it is not my purview to talk about classified intermission but we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the iranians. the iranians are -- the israelis and the u.s. are in the same place in terms of how close the iranians are to getting in a clear weapon. they are a good way away. there is no difference between our view and theirs. when my friend talks about fissile material, they have to
take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up and i have to have something to put it in. there is no weapon that the iranians have at this point. both israelis and we know we -- will know if they start the process of building a weapon. all this bluster i keep hearing, all this loose talkre a theyki tng about? are you talking about to be more credible? what more can the president do, stand before the un and tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon. period. unless he is talking about going to war. >> let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. what do they say? they see this administration try to water down sanctions in congress for over two years. they're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. they're spinning the centrifuges faster. they say as saying -- see us
say we need more space for our ally israel. instead of meeting with him, the president goes on a talk show. the secretary of defense wants them back. they're not changing their mind. we have to change their minds so they stopped pursuing nuclear weapons. >> you both saw benjamin netanyahu hold of that picture of the bomb with a red line and talking about the red line being in spring. can you solve this, if they romney-ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear -- timeline? >> we can debate the time line whether it is that short or lager. i agree it is probably longer. >> you do not agree with that
bomb. >> i will not going to classified stuff but we both agree that to do this peacefully, you have to get them to change their minds. they're not changing their minds. >> the ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. the ayatollahs seized that there are 50% fewer exports of oil. he sees the currency going into the tank. he sees the economy going into freefall. he sees the world totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon. with regard to -- bebe. he is my friend. the idea that we are not in- -- i was in a conference call with him talking to bebe for well over an hour. in stark relief and detail of what was going on. this is a bunch of stuff.
here is the deal. >> what does that mean? >> we call it malarkey. last thing. the secretary of defense has made it -- he did not walk anything back. we will not allow the iranians to get in a clear weapon. what he held up was when they get to the point when they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon, they do not have a weapon to put it into. little calm down a little bit. iran is more isolated today than we took off -- then when we took office. it was on the ascendancy when we took office. it is totally isolated. >> thank heavens we have the sanctions in place in spite of their opposition. they have given 20 waivers to the sanction and all i have to point to are the results. there are four years closer to nuclear weapon. i made that case before. >> what is worse, another war in
the middle east -- >> they are closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. >> they're acting like they do not want one. >> facts matter. you are a foreign-policy experts. facts matter. all the have to do is to get an enriched uranium and have a weapon. not true. not true. if we ever have to take action on like when we took office we will have the world behind us and that matters. >> what about bob gates' statement. "could prove catastrophic, haunting as for generations." >> what it does is it undermines our credibility by backing of the point where we make it that all options are on the table. that is the point. the ayatollahs see the
statements and think i am going to get a nuclear weapon. when we see the equivocation that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy so when greed and revolution started they were silent for nine days. when they see as putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in israel, that gives them encouragement. when they see russia watering down any further sanctions, the only reason we got the sanctions is because russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions. when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue. >> let me ask you what is worse, another war in the middle east or a nuclear-armed iran? >> this is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. there dedicating themselves to wiping off the country off the
map. if they get weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue nuclear weapons as well. we cannot live with that. >> war should always be the absolute last resort. that is why these crippling ebections -- that bb netanyahu says we should continue. governor romney says he we should continue. he changes his mind so often. he says they're working. the fact is they're being crippled by them and we have made it clear, big nations cannot bluff. this president does not love. >> i want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue. the state of our economy. the number one issue here of home is jobs. the percentage of unemployed fell below 8% for the first time in 43 months. the obama administration had projected it would fall below 6% now.
will both be level with the american people? can get an appointment to under 6% -- can you get unemployment to under 6% and how long will it take? >> let's take a look at the facts. let's look at where we were when we came to office. the economy was in free fall. we had the great recession hit. 9 million people lost their job. $1.60 trillion in wealth lost in equity in your homes and retirement accounts for the middle class. we had to act for the middle class and we went out and rescue general motors. we went ahead and make sure we cut taxes for the middle class and when that occurred, what did romney do? he said no, let's them go bankrupt. we helped finance homes and he said no.
it should not be surprising for a guy who says 47% of the american people are not willing to take responsibility for their lives. my friend said recently 37% of the american people are takers. these people are my mom and dad, the people i grew up with, my neighbors. they've paid more effective income tax. they are elderly people and veterans and people fighting in afghanistan right now who are not paying any taxes. i have had it up to here with this notion that 47% -- is about time they take some responsibility here. instead of signing pledges to grover norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us not to bring back the middle class, they should be signing upa pledge say we will level the playing field and give you a fair shot, we will not repeat the mistakes were made in the past by having a different set of rules for wall street and main street. making sure that we continued to
hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super-wealthy. they're pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. they are holding hostage a middle-class tax cut because they say we will not pass, we will not continue the middle class tax cut unless you get the tax cut for the super- wealthy. it is about time they take some responsibility. >> we are from similar towns. he is from scranton. do not with the unemployment rate is today? >> sure do. >> 10%. it was 8.5% when you came in. that is how it is going. >> that is not how is going. -- it is going. >> d they come in and inherit a tough situation? absolutely. we're going in the wrong direction. the economy is barely limping
along. it is growing at 1.3%, slower than it grew last year and slower than the year before. job growth was smaller and august was slower than in july. we are heading in the wrong direction. 15% of americans are living in poverty today. this is not what a real recovery looks like. we need reforms for recovery and that is what mitt romney and in our proposing. if five. plan. get the energy in ag -- get american energy independent. get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt pricecrisis. make things in america and sell them overseas. do not raise taxes on small businesses because they are our job creators. he talks about detroit. mitt romney is a car guy. they keep misquoting him but let me tell you about the mitt romney i know. this is a guy who was talking
to a family in massachusetts the other day, sheryl and mark nixon. their kids were hit in a car crash, two of them were paralyzed. romney's did not know them. it went to the same church, they did not know them before. he brought his boys and wife and gifts. he said i know you are struggling. i will pay for college. the nixons told me the story. when he told me the story, he said he gave time. he gave 30% to charity. mitt romney is a good man. he cares about 100% of americans in this country. with respect to that quote, the vice-president knows that sometimes you're words do not come out of your mouth the right way. [laughter]
>> but i always say what i mean. >> i want to get everybody out of poverty in the middle class. we believe in a portability and that is what we will push for. >> i have a feeling you have a few things to say. >> the idea if you heard that soliloquy on 47%, you think he just made a mistake, i got a bridge to sell you. look, i do not doubt his personal generosity and i understand what it is like. when i was younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident. my two sons survived. i have sat in the homes of many homes of people i have got through. it do not doubt it is personal
commitment -- his personal -- i do not doubt his personal commitment. he had said let it go bankrupt to the automobile industry. to order thousand people are working and i never met two guays who are down on america across the board. we need more jobs but 5.2 million, if they get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, they get out of the way and passed the jobs, figure out a way and let us allow 40 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down but they never missed a payment. just get out of the way. stop talking about how you care about people. show me something. show me a policy. show me a policy where you take responsibility and by the way, they talk about this great recession as if it fell out of
the sky. where did it come from? it came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card. it $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. i was there. i said we cannot afford that. all the sudden, these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created. . forget that came in with one party control. his party controlled everything and look at where we are right now. they pass the stimulus. the idea that we could borrow $831 billion and spend it on the special interest groups and that would work out just fine. on a planet would never get to 8%. it went up for 43 months. if we pass the stimulus the economy would grow 4%. it is growing at 1.3%. >> when could you get below 6%?
>> that is the premise of our plan is about. getting the economy growing, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years. look at the $90 billion in stimulus. $90 billion in green pork. there is over 100 criminal investigations. >> his colleague runs an investigative committee and spent months and months, they found no evidence of cronyism. i love my friend here. i'm not allowed to show letters but go to our website. he sent me to a letter saying by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies in the state of wisconsin? we sent millions of dollars. >> he did ask for stimulus. >> we advocated for constituents
who were applying for grants. that is what we do. >> i love that. this was such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying, the reason we need the stimulus, it will create growth and jobs. his words. and now he is sitting here looking at me. by the way, the program again, investigated what the congress said was it was a model. less than 0.44% waste or fraud in the program. and all this talk about cronyism. they investigated and did not find one single piece of evidence. i wish he would be more candid. >> was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in finland or windmill's in china? was it a good idea to borrow this money from countries like china and spend it on all these various interest groups? >> it was a good idea. moody's and others said this is what we needed to stop us from
going off the cliff. it said the conditions to grow again. we have 4% of those green jobs did not go under. it is a better batting average investor baker's half. >> where the 5 million green jobs? >> i want to move to medicare and entitlements. we have gone over this quite enough. >> any letter you sent me, i will entertain. >> i appreciate that, joe. >> medicare and social security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget. well benefits under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? >> absolutely. medicare and social security are going bankrupt. these are indisputable facts. when i look at these programs, we have all had tragedies. i -- think about what i have -- they have done for my family. my mom and grandmother who is
facing alzheimer's, it was there for her. after my dad died, we got social security survivor benefits. it helped us go back to college. my mom started a new business because of the skills she got and paid all her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. we will honor the spotless -- promise and the best way is to reformate for my generation. if we reform this for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee it will not change. look what obamacare does. it take $760 billion to spend from medicare. even their chief backs this up. it cannot spend the same dollar twice. it cannot claim that this money goes to medicare and obamacare. they charge a board to regulate.
the president is supposed to appoint them and not one of them has to have medical training. if we do not sure of social security, when the program goes bankrupt, a benefit cut kicks in on currency. there will stop that from happening. they have not put a credible solution on the table. he will tell you about vouchers. he will say all these things to try and scare people. here is what we're saying. give younger people when they become medicare eligible guaranteed coverage options. you cannot be denied including traditional medicare. choose your plan and medicare subsidizes your premiums. not as much for the wealthy people. more coverage for middle income and total out-of-pocket coverage for the poor and the sick. we would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their medicare is delivered instead a 50 bureaucrats deciding if, where, and when
they get it. >> i heard that death panel argument from sarah palin. in every debate i hear this stuff about panels but let's talk about medicare. back, applied to medicare. we cut the cost of medicare. we stopped overpaying insurance companies when doctors and hospitals, the ama support we did. the aarp endorsed what we did. and extending the life of medicare to 2024. it gave more benefits. do you have more benefits today? you'd do. if you're near the doughnut hole, you have $600 more to help your prescription drug costs. wellness visits cost without copays. guaranteed benefit. when they first proposed, when the congressman had his first voucher program, the cbo said it
would cost $6,400 a year more for every senior. 55 and below when they got there. he knew that if he got all the guys in congress to vote for it. governor romney knowing that said i would sign it right there. who do you believe? the ama, me, a guy who has fought his whole life for this, or somebody who would put in motion a plan that knowingly cuts -- adds $6,400 a year more to the cost of medicare? another got a new plan. trust me. -- now they got a new plan. follow your instincts on this one. we will not privatize social security. if we had listened to governor romney and the congressman during the bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market? their ideas are old and their
ideas are bad and they eliminate the guarantee of medicare. >> here's the problem. they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning medicare into a keybanc for,ca -- cookie bank for obamacare. one out of six hospitals will go out of business. seniors will lose a benefit cuts. these are from your actuaries. >> more people signed up for medicare advantage after the change. >> i know -- i know you are under a lot of dress to make up for lost ground. -- boehner's to make up for lost ground but it would be better -- duress to make up for lost ground but it would be better not to interrupt each other. >> let me ask you, what is your
specific plan for seniors who cannot afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call about izard? -- a voucher? >> this is a plan -- that $6,400 number was invented. this is a plan that is bipartisan. it is a plan to put together with a prominent democratic senator. >> there's not one democrat who endorses -- he said he does not support it. >> we put it together with a former clinton budget director. this idea came from the clinton commission to save medicare. here's the point. if we do not fix this problem pretty soon, current seniors get cut. here's the problem. 10,000 people are retiring every single day in ameri and the will for 20 years.
>> if we -- if they allow medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat. seniors are not denied. they're not denied. all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? have you lost medicare a bandage? -- advantage? >> why not slowly braised the eligibility age -- raise the eligibility age by two years? >> i was one of eight people sitting in the room that included toenail negotiating with president reagan -- to negotiating with president reagan. we made the system solvent to
2033. we will not be part of any voucher plan. the voucher says, when your 65 commercial for the best insurance to can get, you are out of medicare. it will not keep pace with health care costs because it did keep pace, there would be no savings. that is why they go the voucher. we will be a part of a voucher program or the privatization of social security. >> if you go to your mailbox, get a check, and buy something, no one is proposing that. barack obama four years ago running for president said if you do not have fresh ideas, you still tactics to scare voters. if you do not have a good record to run out, pay your pocket and so what people should run from. -- paint your opponent as someone people should run from. >> for younger people -- we said
then and what i have always agreed is let younger americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the social security system. what we're saying is no changes for anyone 55 and above. the kinds of changes we're talking about for younger people like myself as do not increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everyone else. when we raise the retirement age, it would not get into -- until 2103. >> if we went with the proposal made by mitt romney, if you're in your 40's now, you will pay 2600 a year. if you are in your 20s you get $4,700. the idea of changing and changing in this case to cut the benefits without taking action,
that is the wrong way. these guys have not been big on medicare from the beginning. their party has not been big on medicare and i have been about social security as little as you can do. use your common sense. who do you trust on this? a man who introduced the bill who would raise its $6,400 a year knowing it and passing it and romney saying cited for me and the president. >> that was misleading. this is what politicians do when they do not have a record to run on. try to scare people from voting for you. if you do not get ahead of this problem -- >> medicare beneficiaries -- >> we will move on. >> we are not going to jeopardize this program. we have to save it. >> you are jeopardize in this program. you are changing from a guaranteed benefit to premium
support. people will have to pay more money out of their pocket and the families i know and the families i come from, they do not have the money to pay more. >> more for lower income people at less for higher income people. >> i would like to move on to a simple question for both of you. something tells me i will not get a simple answer. >> i give you a simple answer. they're raising the cost of medicare. >> who will pay more in taxes, who will pay less? >> the middle class will pay less and people making $1 million or more will contribute slightly more. the continuation of the bush tax cuts. we're arguing that the bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 million billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 billion. we see no justification for those and they are patriotic
americans, they're not asking for this continued tax cut, they are not suggesting it but my friends are insisting on it. 120,000 families, by continuing that tax cut will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years and their income is an average of $8 million. we want to extend permanently the middle class tax cut permanently from the bush little cut.ddle class tax let's go ahead and vote on it. they are holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super-wealthy. on top of that, they have another tax cut coming. $5 trillion that all the studies point out will in fact give another 2 marder $50 million -- 200 tricky thousand dollars to those families and raise taxes -- $200,000 to those families
and raise taxes. this is unconscionable. there is no need for this. the middle class got knocked on their h.ls the great recession crushed them. they need some help now. the last people that need help are 120,000 families for another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. >> congressmen. >> our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. is a plan that is estimated to create 7 million jobs. we think that government taking 20% of a family in business's income is enough. obama thinks the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8% of its small-business's income. if you passed every person and every successful business making over $250,000 at one had a%, it
would run the government for 98 days. you see, there are not enough small businesses and rich people to tax to pay for their spending. the next time you hear them say do not worry about it, we will get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share, watch out, middle-class. the tax bill is coming to you. that is why we're saying we need fundamental tax reform. let's look at it this way. eight out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. where i come from, the canadiens dropped their tax rates to 15%. the average tax is 25% and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40%. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. this one tax would actually tax 53% of small business and come.
it is expected to cost 710,000 jobs. it does not pay for 10% of the proposed deficit spending increases. what we're saying is, lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes to the higher income people. we have three bottom lines. do not raise the deficit. do not raise taxes on the middle class. do not lower the share of income that is borne by the high income earners. he keeps saying this $500 trillion plan and it has been discredited by six studies and their deputy campaign manager acknowledges it was not correct. >> let's talk about the 20%. you have refused to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20% across the board tax cut. do you have the specifics or are you still working on it and that is why you will not tell voters? >> different than this administration, we want to have a bipartisan agreements. >> do you have the specifics?
>> look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. the work together to fix the tax base. we are saying here is our framework. lower tax rates 20%. we raised $1.20 trillion. we forgo $1.10 trillion in loopholes and deductions. what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayer so more there -- more of their income is taxed. we can lower tax rates across the board. here is why i am saying this. >> i hope i get time to respond to this. >> you will get time. >> we want to work with congress to achieve this. what we're saying is lower tax rates 20%, start with the wealthy. >> you guarantee this? >> absolutely. six studies have guaranteed.
>> let me have a chance to translate. i was there when ronald reagan -- to give specifics of what he was going to cut. in terms of -- he gave specifics in what he was going to cut. 90% of american businesses make less than 2 luckett $50,000. that counts as businesses. governor romney 10 days ago was asked, you pay 40% on $20 million. some are making $50,000 and paid more than that. do you think that is fair and he said that is fair. you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes? the loopholes, the biggest loophole that take advantage of is the interest loophole and capital gains loophole. the extent that.
there's not enough -- the reason why the aei study, the tax policy center study, the reason they say it will -- taxes will go up on the middle class, the only way you can 5 -- fined $5 trillion is cut the local production. cut the health care deduction, take away their ability to take a tax break to send their kids to college. >> he is wrong about that. you can cut tax rates by 20% and still preserve these preferences for middle-class taxpayers. >> not mathematically possible. >> it is mathematically possible. it has been done before. >> it has never been done before. >> it has been done a couple of times before. republicans and democrats have worked together on this. >> when we did it with rec and
he said here is what we're going to cut. >> that is how you get things done. you work with congress. let me see it this way. >> a 7% rating? >> 87% of the legislators were democrats. he did not demonize them or demagogue them. he reached across the aisle and did not compromise principles. he balanced the budget. >> if he did such a great job -- why is he even contesting massachusetts? >> what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially [inaudible] >> let taxes expire like they're supposed to on those millionaires. we cannot afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum of $1 million. they do not need it. those families make it dollars
million a year. middle-class people need the help. why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? why does he -- >> can you declare anything off limits? >> can you guarantee that no one who makes less than $100,000 will have their deduction for mortgages impacted? >> he keeps trying to make you think this is some movie star hedge fund guide. >> 97% of businesses -- small businesses make less than to hundred $50,000 a year. >> -- $250,000 a year. >> you are going to increase the defense budget. >> we're going to cut the defense budget.
>> that is $2 billion. >> no massive defense increase? >> you want to get into defense now? >> how do you do that. >> they propose a $470 billion cut to defense and we have another $500 billion cut to defense that is working on the horizon. they insisted on that cut being involved in the debt negotiations. >> no one wants that. i want to know how you do the math and have this increase. >> you do not cut defense by $1 trillion. that is what we're talking about. cut 80,000ing to soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. >> drawing down on one more and one more.
>> the navy will be the smallest it has been before world war i. this and by its weakness. it did not impose these devastating cuts on our military. we're seeing do not cut the military by $1 trillion. not increase it but do not cut it. >> i want to move on. >> we do not cut it. that was part of a debt deal that they asked for and let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the deal. he said, we have been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell you what that meant? we have been looking for bipartisanship for a long time. >> he voted for for automatic cuts and the act -- and they asked -- the military says we need a smaller, leaner army. we need more special forces. we do not need more tanks.
not some of the military.ta wthat theasec dof the joint chiefs of staff. recommended to us and agreed to by the president. as a fact. they made the recommendation first. >> let's move on to afghanistan. that is one of the biggest expenditures this country has made. in dollars and more importantly, in lives. we just passed a sad milestone of losing 2000 troops in this war. more than 50 were killed this year by the barry afghan forces were trying to help. afghan forces we're trying to help. we degraded al qaeda. why not leave now? what more can we really accomplished? is it worth more american lives? >> we do not want to lose the gains we've gotten. we want to make sure the taliban does not come back in and give al qaeda a safe haven. we agree with the administration
on their 2014 transition. when i think about afghanistan, i think about the incredible job that our troops have done. you have been there more than the two of those combined. the first time i was there it was amazing to me what they were facing. i went to kandahar before the search and i sat down with the young -- a young private from the menominee indian reservation who would tell me what he did every day and i was in all. to go back there and help and see what they had accomplished? it is nothing short of amazing. what we do not want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. we have disagreed from time to time on a few issues. we would have likely taken into account the recommendations from our commanders, general petraeus, admiral mullen on triple struck this year's fighting season. we have been skeptical about negotiations with the taliban especially while their shooting at us but we want to see the 2014 transition be successful.
we want to make sure that our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorist. >> let's keep our eye on the ball. the reason i have been in and out of afghanistan -- 20 times. i have been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter, sometimes in a vehicle. the fact is we went there for one reason. to get those people who killed americans. al qaeda. we decided al qaeda central. we have a limited osama bin laden. that was our purpose. in fact, in the meantime, we said we would do, we would help train the afghan military. it is their responsibility to take over their own security. that is why with 49 of our allies in afghanistan, we have agreed on a gradual drawdown so
we are out of their by -- there in 2014. my friend the governor says it depends on conditions. it is the responsibility of the afghans to take care of their own security. we have trained over 315,000 mostly without incident. there have been more than two dozen cases of -- where americans have been killed. if the measures do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. we will only train in the army bases that exist there. but we are leaving in 2014. in the process, we will be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. we have been in this war for
over one decade. the primary objective is almost completed and now all we are doing is putting the government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. it is their responsibility, not america's. >> what conditions would justify staying? >> we don't want to stay. the fort operating base -- the forward operating base, i want all of our troops to come on as soon and safely as possible. we want to make sure that 2014 is successful. that is why we want to make sure that we give commanders what they say they need to be successful. that is the point we are making. if it was just this, as return
on our television screens these days, the absolute unraveling of the obama foreign policy. problems are growing at home, and problems are growing abroad. but jobs are not growing here at home. >> he says we are absolutely leaving in 2014 and you say that is not an absolute but you won't talk about what you will do. >> we don't want to broadcast our enemies, put a date on your calendar, wait us out, and come back. we do agree with the timeline and the transition. but what any administration will do in 2013 as assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. >> we do not want to do -- get our allies reason to trust us less and we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and way out for us. >> that is a bizarre statement.
49 of our allies signed on to this position. 49 of them said to get out in 2014. it is the responsibility of the afghans. >> we have soldiers and marines, we have afghan forces murdering our forces over there. the taliban is taking the advantage of this timeline? gosh what we have found out, and you saw it in iraq, baghdad, in the case of iraq and kabul, they will not step up. but they are happy to let us continue to do the job. the only way we will step up is to say, fellas, we are leaving.
it stepped up. that is the only way it works. >> let me go back to the surge troops. you brought this up, congressman ryan. i have talked to a lot of troops and senior officers that were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season. some of them saw that as a political move. can you tell me what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops come? >> by the way, when the president announced a surge, you will remember, the military said that the surge will be out. nothing political about this. before the surge occurred, be straight with me. before the surge occurred, we said that they will be out by the end of the summer. the reason for that -- >> the military follows orders.
there are people concerned about pulling out. >> but not the joint chiefs, that was the recommendation in the oval office to the president of the united states of america. i sat there. i am sure you'll find somebody that disagrees with the pentagon. that is not the case here. the reason why the military said that is, you cannot wait and have a cliff. it takes months to draw down forces. >> i think this can get a little confusing. but we have all met with general allen in afghanistan to talk about fighting seasons. here is the way it works. a mountain pass is filling with snow, they come over from pakistan to fight our men and women. when it is frozen with snow,
they can't do it. fighting gets really high and the winter, it goes down. admiral mullen came to congress and said, if you pull these people out, it puts people more at risk. that is the problem. we drew down 22,000 troops, but the remaining troops that are there that have the same mission to prosecute are doing it with your people. -- fewer people. that makes them less safe. it we are sending fewer people out to do the same job as a month ago. >> it was turned over to the afghan troops. we trained. and nobody got pulled out that didn't get killed and by trained afghan personnel. he is conflating two issues. the fighting petraeus wasas
talking about was the fighting season this spring. that is what he was talking about. >> the calendar works the same every year. it is warm or is not. they are still fighting us and they are still coming over the passes. they're coming to all of these areas, but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. >> that is right, because that is the afghan responsibility to train them. >> not in the east. >> not in the east? that is the most dangerous places well. you would rather americans be going? >> we are already sending americans, but you were of them. dodge that is right, we are sending more afghans to do the job. afghans to do the job. moreet's move to syria,
than 25,000 or 30,000 people have been killed. president obama explained the military action taken in libya by saying it was in the national interest to go and and prevent further massacres from occurring there. why doesn't the same logic apply in syria? >> is a different country and five times as large geographically. it has 1/5 of the population. five times as large. it is in a part of the world where they will not see what ever would come from that war to see it into a regional war. a country that is heavily populated in the most dangerous area of the world. if it blows up at the wrong people gain control, it will have impact on the entire region causing potential wars. but we are working hand in glove to the tur with the
jordanians, the saudis, and the people in the region to identify the people that deserve the help so that when assad goes, there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not be al qaeda sponsored government. all of this loose talk about how we are going to do, we can do so much more in there. what more would they do other than put american boots on the ground? the last thing america needs is to get another ground war in the middle east requiring tens of thousands if not well over 100,000 american forces. they are the facts. they are the facts. when the governor is asked about this, he goes up with a lot of verbage, but pressed, he says
we are not doing anything different than we are now. are they proposing putting american aircraft in the air space? if so, they should speak up and say so. but that is not what they are saying. we are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces that will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional sunni-shia war. >> nobody is proposing to send troops to syria. american troops. how will we do things differently? we would not refer to assad as a reformer when he is killing his own civilians with his russian- provided weapons. we would not be outsourcing our foreign policy to the united nations giving vladimir newton veto power over our efforts to -- putin veto power over our
efforts. she said that they were on the wrong side of history and she was right about that. this is how the russian reset is not working. where are we? obama said assad should go. it has been over a year and the man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and more fighters are spilling into this country. the longer this is going on, the more people groups like calcutta -- al qaeda are going in. we could have easily identified the freedom fighters working with the turks, the saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with. we waited for them to come up with an agreement to the un. we gave russia veto power and
30,000 assyrians -- syrians are dead. >> what will you do differently? you never answer the question. you don't go through the un. that we have been in the process and have been for months to make sure that humanitarian aid as well as other aid is getting to the forces that we believe, the turks believe, the jordanians believe, the free forces inside of syria. that is under way. our allies are all on the same page. nato as well as the arab allies in terms of trying to get a settlement. that was their idea. we enough. the fact of the matter is that russia has a different interest than we do. >> what happens if assad does not fall?
congressman ryan. what happens if he hangs on? >> iran who keeps their greatest ally, he is a supporter of terrorism and he will continue to slaughter his people. >> what would romney-ryan do about that? >> we agree with the same red light on chemical weapons. they are right about that. but what we should have done earlier is work with the freedom fighters. we should not have called him a reformer. forshould not have waited russia to give us the green light at the un. they're still arming the man. >> the opposition is being harmed. >> by the way, if we had the
forces agreement that the vice- president said he would that his vice presidency on in iraq, we would have been able to prevent that. >> let me ask you what is your criteria for intervention. worldwide. >> what is in the national interest of the american people. it has to be in a strategic national interest of our country. >> no humanitarian. >> the situation will come up with their own set of circumstances. putting american troops on the ground has to be within the -- those are things that don't put american troops on the ground. only in our national security interests. >> i want to return home for these last few questions. this debate is historic. but we have two catholic
candidates for the first time on the stage. i would like to ask you both what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. talk about how you came to that decision and how your religion played a part in that. this is such and emotional issue for some many people. please talk personally if you could. congressman ryan. >> i don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life for their faith. our faith informs us of everything we do. how to take care of the vulnerable, to make sure people have a chance in life. you ask why a pr mo-life -- i am pro-life. it is not simply because of my catholic faith. it is because of reason and
science. i think of 10 1/2 years ago, my wife and i went to mercy hospital where i was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child. we saw that heartbeat. our baby was in the shape of a bean. we have nicknamed our child "bean." i believe life begins at conception. i understand this is a difficult issue and i respect people that don't agree with me on this. but the policy of our administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. what troubles me more is how this administration has handled look at what they are doing through obama care with assaulting the liberties of this
country. they are infringing upon our first freedom. the freedom of religion. they infringe on catholic charities and hospitals. they should not have to sue to maintain religious liberties. with respect to abortion, the democratic party should say they want to be legal and rare. they support it with taxpayer funding with obama care and foreign aid. the vice president went to china and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second- guess their one-child policy of forced abortions. >> my religion defines who i am. i have been a practicing catholic my whole life. it has particularly in formed by
social doctrine. it talks about taking care of those that can't take care of themselves. people that need help. with regard to abortion, i accept my church's position as a doctrine. life begins at conception, i accept it in my personal life. but i refuse to impose it on equally devout christians and muslims and jews. i refuse to impose that on others of like my friend here -- unlike my friend here. i do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that they can't control their body. it is a decision between them and their doctor. i will not interfere with the supreme court. in regard to the assault on the catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear.
no religious institution, catholic or otherwise, including services or any hospital, none have to pay for contraception, and none has to be a vehicle to get contraception. not in any insurance policy they provide. that is a fact. with regard to the way they differ, my friend says he -- i guess he accepted governor romney's position. in the past, he has argued that there was rape, forcible rape, in the case of rape or incest, it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. i just fundamentally disagree with my friend. >> all i'm saying is that if you believe that life begins at
conception, that doesn't change the definition of life. the policy of romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. i have to take issue with the catholic church. why would they keep suing you? a distinction without a difference. >> i want to go back to the abortion question. should those that believe that abortion should remain legal be worried if you are elected? >> we don't think unelected judges should make this decision. through their elected representatives, they should make this determination. >> the next president will get one or two supreme court nominees. that is how close roe v. wade is. just ask yourself, the chief
adviser on the court of r mr.omney -- for mr. romney, is he likely to appoint someone like scalia on the court, far right, that would outlaw abortion? i suspect that what happened. i guarantee you that will not happen. we have picked to people that have been open-minded. we picked people that had an open mind and did not come with an agenda. >> i will move on to this clause in question because we are running out of time. you have said the two of you respect our troops enormously. your son has served and perhaps someday your children will serve as well. i recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier that said his presidential campaign has left him dismayed.
the ads are so negative and they are tearing down h. other. -- each other. at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? vice president biden. >> i would say the same thing i said to my son, we have only one sacred obligation as a government to acquit those that we sent in harm's way and care for those that come home. everything else falls behind that. i would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country. that should be honored and he should not be thrown into a category of the 47% that don't
pay taxes, somehow not taking responsibility. i would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign that i am sure both of us regret. anyone having said, particularly in these special new groups that can go out bear and raise all the money they want and not have to identify themselves. it's an abomination. the bottom line is i would ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not governor romney or president obama has the conviction to lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this recession hit and they got wiped out. or whether or not he will continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy and not asking them to bring back the middle class.
i would ask them to take a look at if the president who has acted wisely in the use of force. and of the comments being made by governor romney serve our interests very well. there are things that have been said in campaigns that i find not very appealing. >> first, we are doing a service to the country and we would not impose these devastating cuts to the military that compromises their safety. you have a president that ran for president four years ago, promising hope and change. to attack, blame a,nd defame -- blame, and defame. if you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from. that is what he is doing right
now. a look at the strings of broken promises. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. tell that to the 20 million people that are projected to lose their health insurance if obama care goes through. the seniors that will lose it. he said that i guarantee your taxes won't go up if you make $250,000. 12 of the tax increases have hit the middle class. he said health insurance premiums would go down, they have got out 3000. remember when he said, i promise by the end of my first term, i will cut the deficit in half in four years? we have had four budgets, four trillion dollar deficits. we can't keep spending and borrowing like this. we can't be spending money we don't have. leaders run the problems and fix problems. president obama has not put a credible plan on the table in
any of his four years to deal with the debt crisis. romney put ideas on the table. we have to tackle the crisis before it tackles us. we asked his budget office, can you see the plan? he gave us a copy of the speech. tell us what president obama's plan is, they say it is a speech. we can't estimate speeches. that is what we get with this administration. the speeches, but no leadership. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. and what do we have? the president broke his big promised to bring people together to solve the country's biggest problems. we don't have to settle for this. i hope i will get equal time. >> you will get a few seconds, really. >> the two budgets have
eviscerated all the things the middle class cares about. it will mock 19 million people off of medicare and kicked 200,000 children off of early education. it will eliminate the tax credit people have to send their children to college. it cuts education by $450 billion. it does virtually nothing except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. we have had enough of this. the idea that they are so concerned about these deficits, he voted to put into words on a credit card. >> we are going to the closing statements. >> not raising taxes is not cutting taxes. >> let me calmed things down of debt. i want to talk to you very briefly before we go to a closing statements about your
own personal character. what can you both give to this country as a man and human being no one else could? >> honesty. there are plenty of fine people that can lead this country, but you need people that when they say they are going something,they do it. they offer solutions to fix those problems. it we are not getting that. we can grow this economy faster. it is about getting 12 million jobs. that means going with proven policies that we know work to get people back to work. putting ideas on the table, working with democrats. >> we will get to that issue of what you can bring as a man. i will keep you to about 15 seconds. >> let me tell you, my record
stands for itself. i never say anything i don't mean and everybody knows what ever i say i do, and my whole life has been devoted for leveling the playing field for middle-class people. treating main street and wall street the same. it looked at my record. it has been all about the middle-class. we can grow this country from the metal out and not from the top down. >> we turn to candidates for their closing statements. coin toss has vice president biden starting. >> let me say i want to thank you, martha, for doing this. the fact is, we are in a situation where we inherited a god awful circumstances. people are in trouble and we moved to bring relief from